Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 121

Thread: A question for people about the use of military

  1. #61
    Sage
    ataraxia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,819

    Re: A question for people about the use of military

    Quote Originally Posted by Cordelier View Post
    Here's the problem with that, Ataraxia... among nations as well as men there are always going to be haves and have-nots. I'm all for peace, cooperation, and scientific advancement... but I also know that the benefits derived from those things aren't going to be distributed equally among all. There are always going to be people and nations who feel they aren't getting their fair share. It's like the whole Capitalism vs. Communism debate.... sure, we can all cooperate and work together in a capitalist system - and the people who are smarter and more talented and work harder will tend to get ahead. But if the people who get left behind continue to get left further and further behind, what happens then? Eventually they come to realize the capitalism and cooperation only tend to favor the rich.

    And then on the other side of the coin, there's Communism, where ideally, the benefits of cooperation are shared equally by all. But if all you get is your fair share - the same as the guy next to you - then what's the incentive to work any harder than him? Then it just turns into a lowest common denominator thing and all we end up with is stagnation.

    It seems to me that the ideal situation - for humanity as a whole - is a situation where the poorest countries are growing and developing at a faster rate then the rich ones based on their own merits, but one where the rich countries are somehow able to see the erosion of their relative share of global wealth as an opportunity and not a sign of their economic decline. That's a pretty difficult balance to maintain, don't you think?

    Yes, of course there is always going to be some inherent tension in the system. But looking at how countries like Germany or the Scandinavian countries have been able to juggle and balance these often competing (but equally legitimate) demands- it makes me hopeful that it’s not impossible. There are clearly better and worse ways of doing it, even if there may not be any perfect way. There may not be perfect ways to do it, but that doesn’t mean we give up, or stop making efforts in that direction, or that any movement in that direction is a slippery slope to communist tyranny, or that there aren’t just better ways of doing the juggling.

  2. #62
    Guru
    Cordelier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,687

    Re: A question for people about the use of military

    Quote Originally Posted by ataraxia View Post
    Yes, of course there is always going to be some inherent tension in the system. But looking at how countries like Germany or the Scandinavian countries have been able to juggle and balance these often competing (but equally legitimate) demands- it makes me hopeful that it’s not impossible. There are clearly better and worse ways of doing it, even if there may not be any perfect way. There may not be perfect ways to do it, but that doesn’t mean we give up, or stop making efforts in that direction, or that any movement in that direction is a slippery slope to communist tyranny, or that there aren’t just better ways of doing the juggling.
    Sure, there's always hope... and I'd like to believe the general trend of human advancement is upwards - even if we do tend to backslide from time to time. So how do you overcome greed & nationalism without stagnation? In essence, what drives our progress is what also holds us back.
    "He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know." --- Lao Tzu

  3. #63
    Sage
    ataraxia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,819

    Re: A question for people about the use of military

    Quote Originally Posted by Cordelier View Post
    Sure, there's always hope... and I'd like to believe the general trend of human advancement is upwards - even if we do tend to backslide from time to time. So how do you overcome greed & nationalism without stagnation? In essence, what drives our progress is what also holds us back.
    I am thinking economic and capitalistic competition would be the new spur to growth. Beats killing people and just taking their stuff. And its OK to have socialist safety nets for basic human rights ( like food, clean water, access to a basic education, access to healthcare, etc...) to prevent people from getting hurt too badly when they lose in that game. It would allow them to brush themselves off and get back into the game.

    I am fairly confident that would be a much more humane, and prosperous, world.

  4. #64
    Guru
    Cordelier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,687

    Re: A question for people about the use of military

    Quote Originally Posted by ataraxia View Post
    I am thinking economic and capitalistic competition would be the new spur to growth. Beats killing people and just taking their stuff. And its OK to have socialist safety nets for basic human rights ( like food, clean water, access to a basic education, access to healthcare, etc...) to prevent people from getting hurt too badly when they lose in that game. It would allow them to brush themselves off and get back into the game.

    I am fairly confident that would be a much more humane, and prosperous, world.
    Yes, but you're a valley person. The way I figure it, there are two types of people in the world... village people and hill people. Those are just figurative labels, not literal ones. You can call them whatever you want.... city people and country people, blue state and red state. Basically, what it boils down to is that some people are more attuned to soft living and some people are more attuned to hard living. Some people grow up in a place where there are abundant resources, highly developed commerce, educational, and cultural opportunities at hand. The other kind of people - the hill people - don't.... and they're just fine with that - they're not into city living and going to opening night at the symphony and all of that. Two different types of mentality and outlook. But each side tends to look down on the other for their own reasons. To the valley people, the hill people are a bunch of illiterate, uncultured hicks. To the hill people, valley people are a bunch of entitled, effete elitists.

    The kind of world you're envisioning is a valley person's world... so how far would you be willing to bend to appeal to the hill people?
    "He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know." --- Lao Tzu

  5. #65
    Educator Glitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Alaska (61.5N, -149W)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    688

    Re: A question for people about the use of military

    Quote Originally Posted by Cordelier View Post
    What made the Libyan situation different was the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 - as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, I feel President Obama was empowered to act under the terms of Article VI of the Constitution (Treaties - including the UN Treaty - are the supreme law of the land). In that way, he was in much the same position as President Truman when he intervened in Korea. Obviously he would have been in a much better position if he were able to obtain Congressional approval for his actions, but I don't think it was necessary for him to do so. My only fault with President Obama on Libya is that he didn't seem to do enough to adhere to the War Powers Resolution and keep Congress informed... but that's more an issue of style than substance.

    With Iran, I very much doubt that President Trump would be able to obtain passage of a similar Chapter VII UN Security Council Resolution nor Congressional approval... so in that instance, I think PL 107-40 is going to be too weak a reed for him to lean on.
    That is a serious stretch. The UN has absolutely no say in who the US goes to war. Article VI of the US Constitution does not give the President carte blanche authority to do whatever he pleases. Before any agreement or treaty can be ratified it must first receive the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Without Senate approval there is no agreement or treaty. What both Truman and Obama did was to deliberately violate the US Constitution, and Congress allowed it.

    No matter how you try to twist and distort the US Constitution, there is no way you can justify any President using military force without prior congressional approval.

  6. #66
    Guru
    Cordelier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,687

    Re: A question for people about the use of military

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    That is a serious stretch. The UN has absolutely no say in who the US goes to war. Article VI of the US Constitution does not give the President carte blanche authority to do whatever he pleases. Before any agreement or treaty can be ratified it must first receive the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Without Senate approval there is no agreement or treaty. What both Truman and Obama did was to deliberately violate the US Constitution, and Congress allowed it.

    No matter how you try to twist and distort the US Constitution, there is no way you can justify any President using military force without prior congressional approval.
    Hate to break it to you, Glitch... but we have treaty commitments that commit and legitimize US use of force. If NATO invokes Article 5 or the UN passes a Chapter VII Security Council Resolution, then the President can legitimately use force without seeking Congressional approval, consistent with the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution and the President's Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief. The Senate was well-aware of these provisions when it passed the UN and NATO Treaties in the 1940's.
    "He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know." --- Lao Tzu

  7. #67
    Educator Glitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Alaska (61.5N, -149W)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    688

    Re: A question for people about the use of military

    Quote Originally Posted by Cordelier View Post
    Hate to break it to you, Glitch... but we have treaty commitments that commit and legitimize US use of force. If NATO invokes Article 5 or the UN passes a Chapter VII Security Council Resolution, then the President can legitimately use force without seeking Congressional approval, consistent with the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution and the President's Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief. The Senate was well-aware of these provisions when it passed the UN and NATO Treaties in the 1940's.
    You are mistaken. Treaties are of equal legal weight of the US Constitution, but they cannot supersede the US Constitution. Which means that under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution only Congress has the authority to declare wars. Not NATO, not the UN, and most certainly not the President.

  8. #68
    Guru
    Cordelier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,687

    Re: A question for people about the use of military

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    You are mistaken. Treaties are of equal legal weight of the US Constitution, but they cannot supersede the US Constitution. Which means that under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution only Congress has the authority to declare wars. Not NATO, not the UN, and most certainly not the President.
    Here's the text of the Supremacy Clause:

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    Treaty commitments are on an equal footing with the Constitution itself as the supreme law of the land.
    "He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know." --- Lao Tzu

  9. #69
    Educator Glitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Alaska (61.5N, -149W)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    688

    Re: A question for people about the use of military

    Quote Originally Posted by Cordelier View Post
    Here's the text of the Supremacy Clause:



    Treaty commitments are on an equal footing with the Constitution itself as the supreme law of the land.
    Now show me where the Supremacy Clause says treaties supersede the US Constitution.

    You can't, because it doesn't. Treaties cannot be ratified in the first place if they violated any part of the US Constitution. Which means that every part of the US Constitution is still valid, including the fact that only Congress has the authority to declare wars.

  10. #70
    Guru
    Cordelier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,687

    Re: A question for people about the use of military

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    Now show me where the Supremacy Clause says treaties supersede the US Constitution.

    You can't, because it doesn't. Treaties cannot be ratified in the first place if they violated any part of the US Constitution. Which means that every part of the US Constitution is still valid, including the fact that only Congress has the authority to declare wars.
    I'm not talking about declaring wars.... I'm talking about invoking treaties as a response to breaches of international peace and security. It's a completely different kettle of fish.
    "He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know." --- Lao Tzu

Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •